JUDGMENT : ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The name of informant and victim have not been disclosed in the present judgment to protect the prestige and dignity of the victim. 3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2010 and order of sentence dated 25.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Patna in S.Tr. No. 228 of 2009 whereby and whereunder appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 366 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- (one thousand) and, in default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of six months. 4. As per prosecution case, the informant in his fardbeyan recorded by S.I. Sona Prasad Singh of Ram Krishna Nagar police station on 17.09.2008 at 13:00 hours at the police station, has stated that on 04.09.2008 at about 3:00 p.m., his wife along with minor son went to Kankarbagh for purchasing articles in market, but did not return back. He proceeded for search of his wife. During the course of search, he came to know that appellant is alleged to have taken away by inducing her. It is further alleged that appellant has distant relationship with the informant and he used to come to his house. 5. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Ram Kishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2008 was registered under Sections-366 and 498 of I.P.C. Investigation started and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Section 366 of I.P.C. Cognizance has also been taken under Section-366 of I.P.C. and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial and disposal. On 08.05.2009 charges were framed against the appellant under Section 366 of I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home guilt of accused person, prosecution has examined all together two witnesses 6 witnesses. P.W. 1/informant, P.W. 2 (victim), P.W. 3 Ram Jewahar Singh, P.W. 4 Binay Kumar, P.W. 5 Sita Ram Prasad and P.W. 6 Rajendra Kumar/I.O. 7. 6. In order to bring home guilt of accused person, prosecution has examined all together two witnesses 6 witnesses. P.W. 1/informant, P.W. 2 (victim), P.W. 3 Ram Jewahar Singh, P.W. 4 Binay Kumar, P.W. 5 Sita Ram Prasad and P.W. 6 Rajendra Kumar/I.O. 7. Prosecution has produced following documentary evidence on record:- Exhibit-1: Signature of the informant on the fardbeyan; Exhibit-2: Signature of victim upon the statement u/S- 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-3: F.I.R. 8. Defence has also examined one defence witness, namely Sanjay Ram as D.W. 1. 9. Defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total denial. 10. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the third paragraph of the judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a considerable delay of 13 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Though the occurrence took place on 04.09.2008, but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 17.09.2008 and I.O./P.W. 6, during adducing evidence has not explained such delay in the case diary and the whole prosecution-story is in question mark and the very lodging of F.I.R. is just to fill up the lacuna in order to suit the prosecution-story and appellant has been made accused in the present case though it has been admitted that appellant is the distant relative of the informant. The initial version of the prosecution-story is doubtful. The question is when the victim left the house of informant on 04.09.2008 with the child, what is the justification for not lodging the F.I.R. promptly. The very purposive approach of lodging the F.I.R. is to implicate the appellant. In order to suit the prosecution story, it has been narrated by the informant that the victim left the house of informant with the sole purpose of purchasing the articles in market and she decided not to return back on the day of leaving the husband. The very purposive approach of lodging the F.I.R. is to implicate the appellant. In order to suit the prosecution story, it has been narrated by the informant that the victim left the house of informant with the sole purpose of purchasing the articles in market and she decided not to return back on the day of leaving the husband. The question arises how a person who is having responsibility of upkeeping the house left the house and resided outside for a considerable period of 23 days without raising any alarm and when the child was also along with the victim, prudently and pragmatically it cannot be denied that without having any implied consent one cannot leave the house for such a long period with a minor child. The role of the I.O./P.W. 6 is doubtful in view of the fact that when the occurrence took place on 04.09.2008 and F.I.R. was lodged after 13 days, why he has not investigated on the point that how many days the victim lived outside after leaving her house. This puts question mark on the fair investigation of I.O./P.W. 6 and there is no whispering regarding the minor child who is along with the victim and in the light of the statement of the victim during cross-examination that no proposal or offer of marriage was given from the side of appellant prior to occurrence, the allegation of victim that she was taken away from her house for the purpose of marriage is totally contradictory and inconsistent and the very statement of victim is consistent on the point that she had left her husband's house with the sole purpose of purchasing articles from market along with her minor child and she did not return and she herself made statement that she resided with the appellant without raising any alarm. In the light of aforesaid fact, it is beyond the stretch of imagination that the act of appellant is culpable under Section-366 of I.P.C. In the cases of offence under Section-366, the core aspect of the offence is the volition, intention and conduct of the appellant to determine the offence and the intent of the accused is vital question for determining in such a case. Here, the appellant did not provoke the victim to leave the house rather the victim left the house with the sole purpose of purchasing articles along with child and she did not return back. Though the victim has stated that she was taken away by the appellant on a vehicle on the pretext of dropping her at the house of her husband, but she has herself stated that she stayed continuously in the company of appellant for 23 days, without having any alarm. It clearly indicates that there was no intent on the part of the appellant to provoke the victim which is evident even by virtue of the statement made by the victim that she was left at a particular place and thereafter she joined the company of her husband. In this way, offence under Section-366 of I.P.C. is not proved and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned Court is not justified and legal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mere kidnapping does not bring an accused under the ambit of Section 366 IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2016) has observed that “So far as charge under Section-366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the kidnapping is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.” and on the point of delay, it is further observed that delay in lodging the F.I.R. was for the sole purpose of due deliberation. In the present case, there was delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. and said delay has not been explained. The absence of plausible explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R. is fatal for prosecution as there is every chance of due deliberation and prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, there was delay of 13 days in lodging the F.I.R. and said delay has not been explained. The absence of plausible explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R. is fatal for prosecution as there is every chance of due deliberation and prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are not justified and legal and the same are fit to be set aside. 12. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that in the statement of the victim under Section-164 Cr.P.C. as well as statement at the time of adducing evidence before Court, there is hardly any contradiction and she was being induced to leave the house of her husband. She joined the company of the appellant at the misleading statement of the appellant. The victim has stated that she was taken by appellant on the pretext of dropping her at her husband’s house. P.W. 1/informant, P.W. 2/victim and P.W. 6/I.O. have corroborated the story of prosecution. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to differ from the finding of the concerned Court and the concerned Court has well explained the reason for convicting the appellant under Section-366 of I.P.C. and sentence has been passed under said Section. As such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned court are justified and legal and no interference is needed. 13. The question which arises for consideration is:- Whether the prosecution has proved the case under Section- 366 of I.P.C. against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt? 14. I have perused the impugned judgment, order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on behalf of the parties as noted above. 15. Before analyzing the prosecution-story, it is necessary to discuss the core ingredient of Section-366 of I.P.C.which are as under: “366. "Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on behalf of the parties as noted above. 15. Before analyzing the prosecution-story, it is necessary to discuss the core ingredient of Section-366 of I.P.C.which are as under: “366. "Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. ---Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid." 16. In order to constitute the offence of 'kidnapping' a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this Section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse. 17. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse. 17. Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such kidnapping took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that he complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her kidnapping. Mere kidnapping does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the kidnapping is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold/the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC. 18. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial court in the light of the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C. 19. P.W.-1 is the informant and husband of the victim(P.W.2). He has stated that the alleged occurrence took place on 4.9.08 at about 1:00 P.M. On that day his wife/victim had gone to Kankerbagh for marketing but she did not come back till evening. Then he started to search her but he could not trace her out upon which he lodged a written report (sanha) on 10.9.2008 in Ram Krishna Nagar police station against appellant Shiv Kumar Biteshwar because he had suspicion upon him that he might have taken away the informant’s wife by enticing her. He has further stated that accused Shiv Kumar alias Biteshwar always used to come to his house because he(accused) is brother-in-law of his younger brother. He has further stated that accused Shiv Kumar alias Biteshwar always used to come to his house because he(accused) is brother-in-law of his younger brother. He has further stated that when his wife was not traced out, he lodged a case against accused Shiv Kumar alias Biteshwar at the police station on 17.9.08. This witness has identified his signature upon the fardbeyan as Ext.1. This witness has also stated that his statement was recorded by the police. 19.1. During cross-examination by the defence he has stated that he has compromised the case with the accused (appellant). He has also stated that his wife is presently living with him and he has stated that further he has no grievance remained with appellant (accused). 20. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 1/informant it is clear that he has stated that the victim left for market and she was found traceless and he has stated that appellant was alleged to have taken away his wife by act of inducement as he was in the habit of coming in his younger brother's house. But he has not explained regarding 13 days missing of his wife and child and he lodged the F.I.R. regarding missing of his wife and child without whispering about their whereabouts for 13 days. The very initial version of prosecution story reflects the delay of 13 days and he (informant) has not stated while adducing evidence in examination-in-chief as to why delay has been caused in lodging the F.I.R. Though there was nothing on record to show as to who had told the informant that the victim along with the child was taken away by the appellant. Neither the informant has revealed either in initial version of prosecution story nor did he make any whispering as to how he came to know that his wife had been taken away by the appellant and there is no explanation for lodging the FIR belatedly. In this way, evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. 21. P.W. 2 is the victim of this case. In this way, evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. 21. P.W. 2 is the victim of this case. While adducing her evidence before the Court, she has stated that her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.2) was previously recorded in the court and in the said statement, she had stated that on 4.9.2008 while she was going to market accused Shiv Kumar, who is the cousin brother of her Gotani met her on bye pass road and asked her as to where she was going and on his query, she replied that she was going to Kankerbagh market. She has further stated that accused Shiv Kumar got her seated on his Maruti vehicle and told that he would drop her at her house. She has also stated that accused shiv Kumar administered her "Prasad" of Mahabir Asthan in the vehicle which. She has also stated that after eating the "Prasad" she became unconcious and after three or four hours she gained her sense and found herself in a closed room. She has further stated that she asked accused Shiv Kumar alias Biteshwar to drop her at her house but he did not pay heed to it and told that he would marry with her whereupon she denied to marry with him and requested him to drop her at her house. She has further stated that she lived with the accused between the period 4.9.2008 to 27.9.2008 and during the above mentioned period no other person except the accused used to meet her. She has further stated that she had stated before the magistrate that the accused brought her at Masaurhi on 27.9.06 and left her there and then she went to her maternal house and she called her husband on phone from her maternal house and her husband reached there and brought her to his house on 28.09.08 and on that very date she along with her husband went to police station. She has further stated that accused being a relative, she and her husband have compromised the case with the accused and have filed the said compromise petition in the court. 21.1. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 2, it is clear that P.W.2, who is the victim of the case, though in her statement she has stated that she was taken away by the appellant but she has not stated how the child was being kept. 21.1. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 2, it is clear that P.W.2, who is the victim of the case, though in her statement she has stated that she was taken away by the appellant but she has not stated how the child was being kept. She has not made any such averment as was stated in the initial version of prosecution story. On the contrary, she has stated that she used to take little meals and continuously lived with appellant for 23 days of her own will and in full possession of her senses and the victim did not make any kind of protest or raise any dispute during the entire period of 23 days. In the light of the statement made by the victim, her statement is totally silent on the point of availability of child with her, though in initial version it is mentioned that she left the house along with child. Her statement on the point of appellant dropping her at a particular destination is quite contrary. During her statement recorded under Section-164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that appellant dropped her at Masaurhi from where she went to her parental house, during examination-in-chief, she has stated at para-2 that the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi, whereas in her cross-examination, she has stated at para-11 that the appellant dropped her at her house. During 23 days of her stay with the appellant, the victim has not resorted to leave the company of the appellant of her own volition or by an act of protest or by raising alarm rather the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi. In paragraph 7 she has already admitted that prior to occurrence no proposal of marriage was given by the appellant. Though she has asserted in her statement under Section- 164 Cr.P.C. that she was not taking meal while staying with the appellant, but while adducing evidence before the Court she has stated that she used to take little meal. On the point of taking meal, her statement is quite contradictory. She has not specifically pointed out in her statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. that how many days she lived with the appellant, though she has specifically pointed out during adducing evidence before the Court that she remained with the appellant for 23 days. On the point of taking meal, her statement is quite contradictory. She has not specifically pointed out in her statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. that how many days she lived with the appellant, though she has specifically pointed out during adducing evidence before the Court that she remained with the appellant for 23 days. Her statement reflects that she has not exercised the option of protest or alarm as her conduct clearly indicates that she was dropped by the appellant at Masaurhi on 27.09.2008 and the victim stayed with the appellant for 23 days in conscious and sound state of mind of her own will and in the full possession of her senses and the victim did not make any kind of protest or raise any dispute during the entire period of 23 days, she lived with the appellant. In this way, the statement of victim is quite contradictory on the point of marriage proposal. The statement of P.W. 2/victim, on the point of appellant dropping her at a particular destination is quite contrary. During her statement recorded under Section-164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that appellant dropped her at Masaurhi from where she went to her parental house, during examination- in-chief, she has stated at para-2 that the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi, whereas in her cross-examination, she has stated at para-11 that the appellant dropped her at her house. During 23 days of her stay with the appellant, the victim has not resorted to leave the company of the appellant of her own volition or by an act of protest or by raising alarm rather the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi. The statement of victim varies from one place to another. In this way, her statement is not trustworthy. 22. P.W. 3 Ram Jiwan Singh, who is the father-in- law of the victim, has not supported the prosecution-story and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution and nothing material has come in his cross examination. 23. P.W.4/Binay Kumar is the brother-in-law of the victim. He has stated that he has no knowledge about the alleged occurrence. He has further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and no material fact has come in his cross examination. 24. P.W. 5 is Sitaram Prasad. He has stated that he does not know about the occurrence. He has further stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and no material fact has come in his cross examination. 24. P.W. 5 is Sitaram Prasad. He has stated that he does not know about the occurrence. He has further stated that Darogaji had not recorded his statement. This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution and no material fact has come in his cross examination. 25. P.W. 6 is Rajendra Singh, who is the I.O. of this case. He has stated that on 17.9.2008 he was posted at Ram Krishna Nagar police station and on that day informant (P.W.1) gave his statement (beyan) before the officer-in-charge namely Sona Prasad Singh and the same was recorded by him and on the basis of the said statement, a formal F.I.R. was lodged u/s 366 & 498 I.P.C. vide Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No.43/08 and the said F.I.R. is in the writing and signature of said Sona Prasad Singh which has been marked as Ext. 3. He has further stated the he took charge of investigation and in course of investigation he recorded re-statement of the informant, and visited the place of occurrence and found that P.O. is the room of the informant which is used as living room of the victim. He has stated that there is a courtyard just east of the said room and thereafter there is a vacant land and west of it is the house of Sitaram and north of the said room (P.O.) is the second room of the informant and south of that is lane and thereafter is the house of Jai Ram Singh. This witness has further stated that on the same day, he recorded the statement of Ram Jiwan Singh, Vinay Kumar Singh and Sita Ram Prasad. He has further stated that he produced the victim before the court of Sri. D.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate and he got the statement of the victim recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.10.2008. He has also stated that the accused was arrested on 13.12.2008 and forwarded the accused before the court and thereafter he submitted charge sheet no.109/08 against the accused Shiv Kumar @ Biteshwar was submitted u/S 366 I.P.C. 25.1. D.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate and he got the statement of the victim recorded u/S 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.10.2008. He has also stated that the accused was arrested on 13.12.2008 and forwarded the accused before the court and thereafter he submitted charge sheet no.109/08 against the accused Shiv Kumar @ Biteshwar was submitted u/S 366 I.P.C. 25.1. During his cross-examination, P.W.6/I.O. has stated in paragraph 8 that he has not recorded in the case diary who told the informant that the accused has taken away his wife by inducing her. In para-9 he has stated that he had not recorded in the case diary that he had not asked the informant as to why he had lodged F.I.R. 11 days after kidnapping of the victim. In para-10, he has stated that he had not investigated about the mobile number of the accused bearing Mobile No. 9234628860. In para-11, he has stated that he had recorded the re-statement of the informant at the police station on 17.09.2008. He has further stated that he had not recorded in the case diary as to what is the distant relationship between the informant and the accused. In para-12 he has stated that, in his re-statement the informant had stated that the accused used to stay at his younger brother Vinay Kumar’s house. He has further stated that he had not recorded that the accused is the cousin (Fufera) brother-in-law of the informant. In para-14, he has stated that he had no knowledge that there is brother-sister relationship between the accused and the victim. In para-15, he has stated that he had not made query from any of the witnesses as to who told them that the accused had kidnapped the victim. In para-16, he has stated that witness Ramjiwan Singh is the father of the informant, Binay Kumar is the brother of the informant and Sita Ram Singh is the uncle of the informant. In para-17 he has stated that he did not find any direct witness who had seen the accused and the victim together. In para-18, he has stated that the Dy.S.P. had conducted supervision in his presence and had interrogated the witnesses. He himself stated that he did not remember as to whether the Dy.S.P. had conducted supervision in his presence and had interrogated the witnesses. In para-18, he has stated that the Dy.S.P. had conducted supervision in his presence and had interrogated the witnesses. He himself stated that he did not remember as to whether the Dy.S.P. had conducted supervision in his presence and had interrogated the witnesses. In para-19 he has stated that he has recorded in para-26 of the case diary that on 27.09.2008, the victim stated before the Dy.S.P. that on 27.09.2008 Shiv Kumar @ Biteshwar fled away after dropping her at Masaurhi station. He further stated that he had not investigated regarding the same by going to the Masaurhi Station. In para-20, he has stated that on 01.10.2008 at about 08:05 A.M., the victim along with her husband and child had appeared before him. In para-21 he has stated that he had not asked the informant about her whereabouts during 04.09.2008 to 01.10.2008 as she had to give her statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. In para-22, he has stated that he did not try to verify from any of the witnesses as to whether the victim was present in Kankarbagh Colony at 03:30 P.M. on 04.09.2008. In para-23, he has stated that he tried to record the statement of any independent witness from the village of the victim Brahmpur and recorded the statements of the witness of the boundary. In para-24 he has stated that on 11.12.2008 he arrested the accused from the house of Sanjay Singh, situated at Aadarsh Colony No. 8, Brahmpur. In para-25 he has stated that the victim was not recovered with the accused. He has further stated that the victim had appeared before him with her husband and child. In para-26 he has denied the suggestion that his whole investigation is faulty and that he had written the complete case diary at the police station itself. 26. From the perusal of evidence adduced by P.W. 6, it is clear that he had not made any query as to who told the informant that the accused has taken away his wife by inducing her. In para-9 he has stated that he had not recorded in the case diary that he had not asked the informant/P.W. 1 as to why he had lodged F.I.R. 11 days after kidnapping of the victim. In para-9 he has stated that he had not recorded in the case diary that he had not asked the informant/P.W. 1 as to why he had lodged F.I.R. 11 days after kidnapping of the victim. No whispering was made in his diary regarding the delay in lodging the FIR and he has also not made any investigation regarding the distant relation between victim and appellant and in para 17 he has stated that no eye-witness came during investigation stating that victim and appellant were seen together and he has also stated in paragraph 25 that the victim was not recovered with the appellant and P.W. 6 has stated that victim had appeared before him with her husband and child. From the perusal of the statement of IO, it is clear that the statement of I.O./P.W. 6 suffers from infirmity on the point of fare investigation as he has not investigated clearly as to why the FIR was lodged after such a considerable delay and P.W.6/I.O. has stated that victim went with minor child for purchasing article, but P.W.6/I.O. has not tried to verify from any witness of Kankarbagh whether victim was available on 04.09.2008 at 03:30 P.M. at Kankarbagh Colony or not and the investigation of I.O./P.W.6 is also silent on the point of whether the child was with victim. P.W.6/I.O. in para-25 has stated that victim along with her husband and child had appeared before him. On the point of supervision done by Dy.S.P., the statement of I.O./P.W. 6 is quite contradictory. In para-18, at one time he he has stated that supervision was done in his presence and in the same paragraph he has stated that he did not remember whether supervision was done in his presence or not. He has not recorded in the case diary that no query was put to informant regarding the missing of victim for which F.I.R. was lodged after 11 days. 27. He has not recorded in the case diary that no query was put to informant regarding the missing of victim for which F.I.R. was lodged after 11 days. 27. In the present case, in the initial version of prosecution-story, it has been asserted by informant that the victim left the house of informant along with minor child on 04.09.2008, but F.I.R. was lodged on 17.09.2008 and in between there is a gap of 13 days and no whispering was made by the I.O./P.W. 6 in his diary regarding the cause of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no averment either in the statement of the victim or in the statement of I.O./P.W. 6 regarding the minor child who was along with the victim. Though F.I.R. specifically states that the victim left the informant’s house along with child, but her statement is totally silent on the point of possession of child. Though the victim has stated in her statement u/S-164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her evidence adduced before the Court that she was taken by the appellant and she continued to reside with the appellant, but then she has not raised any alarm during the period she stayed with the appellant peacefully. She has not mentioned how the child was kept during the said period though it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that she left her house along with the child. It is also pointed out that appellant is the distant relative. The continuous living with the appellant, as stated by the victim in her statement, creates doubt that whether she has joined the company of the appellant with implied consent as she has not made any statement how the minor child was kept and I.O./P.W.6, in para-9, has stated that he has not recorded in the case diary that he had not asked the informant as to why after 11 days of the disappearance of victim, the case was instituted. Occurrence took place on 04.09.2008 at 03:00 p.m. in the afternoon and F.I.R. was lodged on 17.09.2008 and the formal F.I.R. clearly reflects that from the date of occurrence, there is a delay of 13 days and delay of 13 days was not explained either in the statement of P.W.1/informant, P.W. 2/victim or P.W. 6/I.O. and absence of explanation of delay in lodging F.I.R. puts question mark on the authenticity of prosecution-story and there is every chance for the due deliberation in lodging F.I.R. In light of aforesaid fact, due deliberation in lodging F.I.R. cannot be ruled out. In light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, delay in lodging F.I.R. shattered the story of prosecution. Even the initial version of F.I.R. is not corroborated on the point of possession of child by P.W.2/victim in her statement as the victim is totally silent on that point. The allegation made by the victim, though it was against the appellant, her continuous residing with appellant, without any protest or raising alarm clearly reflects that there was no disregard and she has not done any act to leave the company of appellant rather appellant dropped the victim, as the victim has stated at the time of adducing evidence before the court or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the very statement of victim does not imply that appellant had committed any act under Section 366 of IPC. Further, P.W.1, who is the informant of the case, has stated that the victim left for market and she was found traceless and he has stated that appellant was alleged to have taken away his wife by act of inducement as he was in the habit of coming to his younger brother's house. But he has not explained the circumstance under which the victim along with child left away in his initial version of prosecution story. Victim has also not made any averment either in her examination-in-chief or cross- examination regarding the cause of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and there is no explanation for lodging the FIR belatedly. In this way, evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. P.W.2, who is the victim of the case, though in her statement she has stated that she was taken away by the appellant but she has also not stated how the child was being kept. In this way, evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. P.W.2, who is the victim of the case, though in her statement she has stated that she was taken away by the appellant but she has also not stated how the child was being kept. She has also not made any averment as it was stated in the initial version of prosecution story and she has stated that she used to take little meal and she continuously lived with appellant for 23 days of her own will and in full possession of her senses and the victim did not make any kind of protest or raise any dispute during the entire period of 23 days. In the light of the statement made by the victim, her statement is totally silent on the point of possession of child and her statement on the point of appellant dropping her at a particular destination is quite contrary. During her statement recorded under Section-164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that appellant dropped her at Masaurhi from where she went to her parental house, during her examination-in-chief, she has stated at para-2 that the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi, whereas in her cross-examination, she has stated at para-11 that the appellant dropped her at her house. During 23 days of her stay with the appellant, the victim has not resorted to leave the company of the appellant of her own volition or by an act of protest or by raising alarm rather the appellant dropped her at Masaurhi and in paragraph 7 she has already admitted that prior to occurrence no proposal of marriage was given by the appellant. In this way, the statement of victim is quite contradictory on the point of marriage proposal and she was left by appellant. In this way, the intent of 366 IPC was not proved by virtue of the statement given by the victim. From the perusal of F.I.R. it is crystal clear that it has been clearly mentioned that how the victim left the house of her husband. In this way, the intent of 366 IPC was not proved by virtue of the statement given by the victim. From the perusal of F.I.R. it is crystal clear that it has been clearly mentioned that how the victim left the house of her husband. The very purpose of leaving the house was shown that she left her husband's house along with child for purchasing article and there was no averment that the appellant is the person who compelled the victim to leave her house rather in the latter portion of story of prosecution, it is mentioned that reasonable doubt is cast as the accused (appellant) is the distant relative and he is the person who is alleged to have taken away his wife and from the statement of victim, it is evident that she lived continuously with the appellant for 23 days without raising any alarm and she was in full possession of her senses and she had not created any hindrance for leaving the company of appellant and she has not taken help of anyone to leave the company of appellant. She has not made any averment how the child is kept. At one time she stated that she did not take meal, but at the other time, she stated that she took little meal. The very purpose of continuously residing peacefully with appellant clearly indicates that there is no absence of consent on the part of the victim. The very conduct of victim clearly indicates that there was implied consent on the part of the victim and she has clearly stated during cross-examination that appellant left her at a particular place. Under Section-366 of I.P.C., it is necessary for prosecution to prove that the accused induced the victim woman or provoked her to leave her house. 28. Here, victim herself has stated that there was no proposal of marriage prior to the occurrence and appellant did nothing to leave the house of her husband rather she left the house to go for market and she joined the company of appellant as stated by victim herself and she continuously lived with appellant for 23 days in full possession of her senses and the victim did not make any kind of protest or raise any dispute during the entire period of 23 days. The victim stayed with appellant for 23 days of her own will and in full possession of her senses and the victim did not make any kind of protest or raise any dispute during the entire period of 23 days. The very act of the victim does not indicate any intent on the part of the accused/appellant for kidnapping. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is quite convincing. 29. On all counts from the analysis of evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as material available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the concerned court are not justified and legal and same are fit to be set aside. 30. In the result, in my view, prosecution case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded. The learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence. Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed. Appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 31. The interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 32. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and for record. 33.The records of this case be also returned to the concerned trial court forthwith.